Re: removing @lsr{} and only using @lsrdir{}

[John Mandereau]

On 24/04/2008, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:38:50 +0200
> John Mandereau <address@hidden> wrote:

> No, no -- I'm saying that I don't think it's worth linking to a
> specific snippet.  As long as people are directed to the Foo
> snippet list, that's all we need.  The extra complication isn't
> worth it.
> 
> Counter-arguments welcome for the next three or four days.  :)

Although I don't add links to particular snippets myself, it's not so
much work linking to a particular snippet, and it may be useful if we
want to anticipate the fact that the Pitches snippet list could
significantly grow in the future, making it difficult to look at what
you want.  If you think this kind of anticipation is useful, David's
argument about getting the reader directly to the piece of information
he wants becomes essential.  On the technical side, checking links would
done by a link checker like lilypond-cvs 404 errors notification or what
Reinhold used.


> >  This would make Selected Snippets clearer.  If you think
> > this is a good idea, this would be a lp-book fragment option like
> > [doctitle=CMD] where CMD is a Texinfo formatting or sectioning command
> > -- I'm thinking about using @emph for snippet names in Selected
> > snippets.
> 
> Sorry, why do we need a CMD?  We should use the same formatting
> for all of them, so an argument-less command like [doctitle]
> should be sufficient.

No, we certainly won't use the same formatting in Snippets document and
in the manuals, as the latter has much more sectioning levels than the
former.  Anyway, it's a bad idea to hardcode the doctitle formatting in
lilypond-book, so let's make doctitle an argument-less option:
lilypond-book could output @lydoctitle{DOCTITLE-TEXT}, and we'd define
@lydoctitle macro differently in macros.itexi and
input/lsr/lilypond-snippets.tely.  I estimate I'll have time to get this
done in about a week.

Cheers,
John